HomeMy WebLinkAboutWeed Control Memo - Matrix
To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
From: Ed Keith, Deschutes County Forester
Date: February 27, 2014
Re: Weed Ordinance issues for consideration
Attached you will find a table of issues distilled from public comment related to the draft weed control
ordinance (Chapter 8.35) which was discussed at the Board business meeting of February 5, 2014. The table
lists the issue, presents a pro and con where applicable and the recommendation from staff as well as the
rationale for that recommendation.
WEED CONTROL ORDINANCE ISSUES
Issue Pro Con Staff Recommendation
1. Requesting that the
Sheriff issue citations.
It is likely that offenders
will take violations more
seriously if issued by the
Sheriff.
Having the Sheriff issue
citations may increase staff
safety in the case of
unhappy offenders.
The Sheriff may not want
to spend staff time
issuing weed citations.
If the Sheriff is willing to
issue citations, it will
likely be done through an
MOA with an associated
cost.
Request that the Sheriff issue
citations.
2. How to define ‘thoroughly
cleaned” equipment, draft
ordinance specified
equipment would be
pressure washed.
Would mean a more
thorough cleaning of
equipment before moving
between properties and on
public right of ways.
Equipment operators
can’t carry pressure
washer equipment with
them.
Pressure washing may
damage some sensitive
equipment.
Remove “pressure washing” from
definition of “thoroughly clean.”
Definition would read “Thoroughly
cleaned means removing all seeds,
plants, plant fragments, dirt and other
debris from the sides, tops, wheels
and undercarriages of machinery”
3. Number of days to allow
for compliance (ordinance
was drafted with a 2-10
day window, state statute
is 2-20)
A shorter timeframe would
keep some weeds and weed
seeds from spreading.
A shorter timeframe does
not mirror state statute.
A shorter timeframe does
not allow for as much
flexibility depending on
the details of the case.
Revise the compliance window to
mirror state statute of 2 to 20 days.
4. Enforce on agricultural
lands only
Don’t apply the ordinance
to smaller, residential lots
The entire county was
declared a Weed Control
District, so must
administer evenly as
much as possible.
State law does not allow
selective enforcement.
Not an effective way to
control weeds or a fair
way to carry out County
ordinance.
No change.
All lands under County jurisdiction
should be held to the same standard.
Issue Pro Con Staff Recommendation
5. Incorporate education and
assistance and voluntary
compliance into ordinance
No change.
The ordinance already incorporates
the code enforcement policy which
states that voluntary compliance is
the desired outcome of all code
enforcement contacts. County staff
practice is to provide education and
seek voluntary compliance first.
Property owners have the ability to let
the Board know if the Weed Control
Inspector gets heavy handed.
6. State alternatives to the
use of chemicals.
Specify how abatement
must be conducted.
No change.
The ordinance does not mandate the
use of chemicals or any other specific
method. The weed inspector and the
landowner can agree as to the best
methods to be employed on a case by
case basis.
7. The ordinance should
apply to County property
No change. The ordinance applies to
all land which the County has
jurisdiction, which includes County
owned land.